[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090529115306.GA19812@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 13:53:06 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/12 v2] ptrace: introduce the empty "struct
ptrace_context"
On 05/28, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> > + task_lock(tsk);
> > + if (likely(!tsk->ptrace_ctx))
> > + tsk->ptrace_ctx = ptrace_ctx;
> > + else
> > + kfree(ptrace_ctx);
> > + task_unlock(tsk);
>
> I don't think it's kosher call kfree with task_lock() held.
Yes, it always makes sense to move as much as possible outside of
spin_lock/etc, but
> The kfree case is a very unlikely path,
Exactly, this kfree() "never" runs under task_lock(), but the code
looks a bit simpler and shorter.
> so it can be:
>
> task_lock(tsk);
> if (likely(!tsk->ptrace_ctx)) {
> tsk->ptrace_ctx = ptrace_ctx;
> task_unlock(tsk);
> return 0;
> }
>
> task_unlock(tsk);
> kfree(ptrace_ctx);
OK, will change.
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists